Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
03/27/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB47 | |
| HB26 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 26-STATEWIDE PUBLIC & COMMUNITY TRANSIT PLAN
2:10:35 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 26, "An Act relating to the duties of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and
relating to a statewide public and community transit plan."
[Before the committee was CSHB 26(CRA).]
2:11:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA introduced the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 26(CRA) and paraphrased the sponsor statement [copy included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) stewards the state's
transportation system as the lead body in developing
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). CSHB 26 aims to support and secure accessible
transportation options for all Alaskans by improving
DOT&PF's public engagement process and broadening the
study of transportation options across the state.
First, CSHB 26 seeks to improve DOT&PF's public
engagement process in statewide transportation
planning. Sufficient collaboration with local and
regional entities is federally required to secure
funding for transportation and infrastructure
projects. CSHB 26 codifies this federal requirement by
specifying that DOT&PF must coordinate with public,
Tribal, and community transit programs in their
development of Alaska's comprehensive, long-range,
intermodal transportation plan (e.g., STIP). In this
case, these transit programs refer to programs such as
Nome's Tribal Transit Program, Juneau's Capital
Transit, Tok's Interior Alaska Bus Line, and
Anchorage's People Mover.
Second, CSHB 26 expands DOT&PF's responsibility to
study alternative transportation options by including
rural and remote areas. DOT&PF is statutorily
responsible for studying alternative means of
transportation in Alaska, but they are currently only
required to study urban areas. Alternative
transportation methods, such as public transportation,
are essential for those without a car and who cannot
drive. According to a 2022 DOT&PF report on The
Economic Value of Public Transit in Alaska, Alaskan
communities benefit from transit due to increased
business sales, reduction of road congestion, less air
pollution, and better travel times.
Public transit is often the only transportation option
for Alaskans with disabilities, low-income Alaskans,
youth, and the elderly. Securing federal funding and
improving access to public and community transit is
essential to connect all Alaskans to their jobs and
communities. HB 26 improves the annual study,
reporting, and development of Alaska's multimodal
transportation network.
2:12:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA commended DOT&PF on being more intentionally
multimodal and addressing the bigger picture; however, she
advised the committee that multimodal transportation efforts are
not currently codified in the state. She continued that, if
codified, it would ensure Alaskans have access to public transit
options in the future. She argued that those Alaskans most
impacted by these efforts of the department should have a "seat
at the table." She warned that if there is not active
engagement with stakeholders, federal funding could be at risk.
She summarized that public transportation is often the only
option available to residents of the state, especially
individuals with disabilities, low-income individuals, youth,
and the elderly. She concluded that securing federal funding
for state transportation is imperative for all Alaskans.
2:15:12 PM
REMINGTON PURNELL, Staff, Representative Genevieve Mina, Alaska
State Legislature, gave the sectional analysis for CSHB 26(CRA)
[copy included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. AS. 44.42.020(a):
Amends subsections (3) and (4) in the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities' planning duties
to "study alternative means of improving
transportation" and "develop a comprehensive, long-
range, intermodal transportation plan for the state"
by including public, tribal, and community transit
programs.
Amends subsection (5) to the Department's duty to
study alternative modes of transportation by adding
rural and remote areas to its scope, and requiring
coordination with local governments and tribal
entities in this process.
Adds subsection (17) which creates a new duty for the
Department to develop a statewide public and community
transit plan in coordination with local, community,
and tribal entities.
MS. PURNELL explained the change incorporated in CSHB 26(CRA).
She stated that in Section 1 of the proposed legislation "ferry
operators" were added to the list of entities that the
department would need to cooperate with while developing a
statewide public and community transit plan.
2:16:49 PM
PATRICK REINHART, Executive Director, Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education, Department of Health,
provided invited testimony on CSHB 26(CRA). He shared that he
is a founding member of the Alaska Mobility Coalition. He
expressed support for the proposed legislation, as it would
ensure the transportation needs for those in the state who do
not drive. He continued that the lives of people with
disabilities who cannot drive would be improved. He argued that
not having this in statute defers the department's ability to
support public transportation. He described the public
transportation programs in the state as "a patchwork;" none is
exactly alike or connected, with some areas having no programs
at all. He suggested that the proposed legislation would help
direct the available funding into a statewide plan.
2:21:23 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID asked about the alternative transportation
options in rural Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA responded that, per the current statute, the
department only studies alternative modes of transportation
options in urban areas. She deferred the question to DOT&PF.
2:22:32 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, responded that the use of the word "urban" [in the
statute] does not limit the department from addressing
transportation issues in rural areas. He further clarified that
the term "alternative" includes a wide swath of possibilities,
including companies, such as Uber. It would also include micro
transportation, such as electric public-use scooters. He noted
that all-encompassing language is used [in the statutes] because
future trends are unknown.
2:23:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the funding and its equal
distribution across the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA responded that public transportation is
funded with both state and federal dollars. She expressed
uncertainty concerning private funding. She stated that the
mental health budget supplies transportation funding in
Anchorage for the elderly and those with disabilities. She
deferred to Mr. Mills for specific funding details. Concerning
transportation equity in the state, she emphasized that the only
cities in Alaska with public transit are Anchorage, Fairbanks,
and Juneau. She stated that the proposed bill would require
DOT&PF to develop plans expanding to other areas of the state.
Concerning creating plans across the state, she referenced the
proposed legislation, [Section 1, paragraph] 17, line 7 to line
9.
2:28:24 PM
MR. MILLS, concerning the funding for the proposed legislation,
expressed the understanding that, under Title 49 [of the Code of
Federal Regulations], the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
has funded the state a total of $9.2 million, and this was
dispersed to local operators and nonprofits. He noted that
transportation advocates are looking for additional funding
because of the "patchwork" of programs in a state the size of
Alaska. In discussing alternative methods of transportation
between hub sites, he mentioned that there has been a suggestion
for a light rail between Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Valley; however, he opined that would be a significant
undertaking.
2:30:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the addition of a ferry system
for Western Alaska and the Yukon River. He expressed the
opinion that the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) already
"wastes a ton of money" because of inefficiencies, and there are
others in the state who need the same type of service. He
reiterated the question concerning the equal distribution of
funds across the state.
2:31:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA expressed disagreement with the idea that
AMHS is a waste, as it is an investment into transportation for
Alaskans who live in coastal areas. She argued that funding the
ferry system should be considered the same as investing public
money in the highway system. She acknowledged the need for
improved public transportation in remote villages, stating that
the proposed legislation would direct the department to be
responsive to this. She discussed the feasibility of a light
rail system, pointing out that funding should be directed to the
communities who are expressing need; otherwise, the department
would "get ahead of itself" by studying bigger options the
public has not necessarily requested. Concerning how the
proposed legislation would affect the ferry system, she stated
that the ferry system is covered under a different statute. She
discussed including ferry operators in the proposed legislation
and deferred to Mr. Mills.
2:33:22 PM
MR. MILLS noted that when addressing more funding for a cohesive
transportation system in the state, this would be a federal,
service reauthorization conversation. He stated that the U.S.
Congress will be discussing this within the next year and a half
because the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will
be expiring. He continued that for additional FTA funding to
expand transportation services, this would need to be a
conversation on the federal level.
MR. MILLS stated that AMHS benefits from federal funding because
of its special designation as a highway. He clarified that the
department operates AMHS, whereas transit grants are provided to
local operators, and this is a significant difference. He
continued that under FTA, Title 23 and Title 49, requirements
for public transportation planning already exists; therefore,
the federal money comes with requirements concerning multimodal
connections and consultations with local governments and Tribes.
He explained that much of the proposed legislation is already
being driven by federal requirements.
2:35:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that his first impression of the
proposed legislation was that it only concerned Anchorage. He
expressed the opinion that all Alaskans should benefit from the
state's money.
2:37:01 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed agreement with the planning
requirement of the proposed bill, explaining that it would
create "a gateway for ideas." He expounded on the importance of
public engagement in formulating transportation plans.
2:39:42 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed appreciation for the idea of having
ferry service on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. She questioned
how "big picture" ideas are discussed by the department.
2:40:33 PM
MR. MILLS responded with an explanation of the M-11 route, which
would incorporate coastal and river ports across parts of
southwestern and northern Alaska. He stated that this passage
was created so these communities could receive grant funding
from the Port Infrastructure Development Program. He advised
the committee that the designation for these parts of the state
created the ability to build infrastructure there; however, the
department is more concerned with stabilizing AMHS and the
communities it currently serves.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK commented that Southeast Alaska communities
have both marine and air transport, while Western and Interior
Alaska do not. She questioned whether this would be within the
scope of the proposed legislation.
MR. MILLS responded that AMHS statutes are different, with long-
term, comprehensive, specific plans, and this would be where any
expansion of AMHS would exist.
2:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that there had been a ferry
plan between Anchorage and Port Mackenzie, arguing that
Anchorage failed to build a terminal. He suggested that
millions of dollars were "waisted" from this project. He noted
that Port Mackenzie has a federal highway terminal designation.
He commented that in the past barges were used, but cargo
airplanes have been the demise of river transport.
2:45:26 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed the understanding that the language
in Section 1, [paragraphs] 3 and 4, in the proposed legislation,
would codify existing federal consultation language.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA responded that language in [paragraph] 17 on
page 3, as well as [paragraph] 5 on page 2 of the proposed
legislation would codify the federal language about engagement
with local governments and community stakeholders. In response
to a follow-up question, she expressed agreement that part of
the language in the proposed bill was created to reflect federal
requirements. She deferred to Mr. Mills.
2:46:59 PM
MR. MILLS offered to provide citations from FTA's Title 23 and
Title 49; however, per the conversation, he stated that the
designated requirements for consultation with local and Tribal
governments is governed by [the concept of the Three Cs of
transportation planning: continuing, comprehensive, and
cooperative, as mandated by the Federal Aid Highway Act of
1962]. He stated that these elements are continuous,
comprehensive, and cooperative.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed appreciation for any references he
could provide to the committee.
2:47:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA, concerning funding, questioned the funding
for different transit projects.
2:48:32 PM
MR. REINHART, concerning previous comments on a light rail
between Mat-Su and Anchorage, stated that the Alaska Railroad
receives millions of dollars in transit commuter funding;
however, he expressed the understanding that the money has not
been spent on commuter services. He expressed the opinion that
this was another lost opportunity.
2:50:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE acknowledged the railroad funding and
expressed the understanding that the problem is that a commuter
rail would need to go through Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson
(JBER). He speculated on the problem with the scenario.
2:51:07 PM
MR. MILLS stated that he could not address the topic. He
offered the understanding that the railroad received the money,
but he expressed uncertainty on the amount. He continued with
the understanding that the railroad is the only entity in the
state that would qualify for the funding. He speculated on any
other entity that could qualify.
2:51:59 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK made closing comments.
[CSHB 26(CRA) was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 26 Version B Sponsor Statement 3.21.25.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| CSHB 26 Version B 3.21.25.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| CSHB 26 Version B Sectional Analysis 3.21.25.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| CSHB Version B Fiscal Note 3.21.25.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| CSHB 26 Version A to Version B Summary of Changes 3.21.25.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| CSHB Version B Letters of Support - Received as of 3.21.25.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| DOT&PF Study - Economic Value of Public Transit in Alaska 5.2022.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |
| AMC Legislative Priorities 2024.pdf |
HTRA 3/27/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 26 |